Monsters with spell lists is not a good sign

[Obryn]

I'm with some others above - I want my stat blocks self-contained.

Having to reference spell lists during play was one of my least favorite things about DMing 3.5. (and 3e, 2e, and 1e.) Most any game that uses something similar - including the infamous lists of monster feats and/or traits - tends to frustrate me... It has made Earthdawn 3e basically a non-starter for me, and even the relatively slim and light WFRP 2e is bothersome in this way.

I have no philosophical problems with NPC spellcasters using PC spell lists. I just want their stat blocks to be concise and self-contained. If you want to give them a Fireball, tell me what the Fireball does without making me keep an SRD page or PHB open.

-O

 

[ferratus]

All I know is that in 3e days, I DM'd a couple campaigns, and in each campaign I had to abandon homebrew adventures as the PC's grew in level. The prep work was just too much for my schedule to handle, especially if I had kids. There is a reason most of the adventures I own are from the 3e era. I played through them, or I would have three or four adventures bookmarked just for particular NPC's.

In 4e, I could homebrew adventures just fine, and I rarely used anything as is out of the monster manual. On Sundays after Mass, in between the hours of 10:30 and 12:00, I could design a monsters that had unique and interesting abilities for that Sunday afternoon, along with the rest of the adventure prep I needed to do.

I simply cannot put the time in to choose feats, skills, spells, and ability scores and equipment for every single NPC I run. I certainly don't have time to do it for every humanoid chieftain, undead demihuman. Sorry, I've got a wife, a job, two kids, and a desire to spend time outside.

NPC and monster rules that have the same rules complexity as PC's? No... NO and NOOOOO. That's something OSR and 4e guys can agree on.

Now if you want to simplify the spells for spells and include them in the stat block, then fine. That's a compromise I can live with, and perhaps even like better than 4e's power system. But don't make me pick the low level spells he won't cast, the out of combat spells he won't cast, his feats, his skills, and his creature subtype obligatory abilities. Don't bog me down in the minutae of 3e.

 

[Dausuul]

That's certainly a valid opinion. However, 4e monster design is also one of the major reasons why we are where we are (4e being abandoned for this new edition after an unprecedented short run, D&D losing the top spot in the market).

Um... no. I really don't think it is. There are a lot of reasons why people didn't like 4E, including dissociated mechanics, massive changes to game lore, battlemat dependence, lengthy combats, rigid class structure, and the condescending attitude of much of the design team*. I have seen very few people cite "monster design" as a reason to dislike 4E. In fact, I have seen several comments to the effect, "You know, I can't stand 4E, but they got monsters right."

There is a place for monsters with spell lists. As I said above, that place is when the monster is an actual spellcaster, like a lich, an NPC cleric, or what have you. But spell lists should be used with great restraint and only where it really matches the fiction.

[size=-2]*I used to think this condescending attitude was mostly being imagined by the anti-4E crowd. Then a few days ago I picked up my old copy of "Worlds and Monsters" and started leafing through it--and damn, does it ever come off as arrogant. Guess the haters were right.[/size]

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm being told by a couple of people who in no way represent anyone other than themselves (nor does anyone) something that goes against my empirical observations and my understanding of the theory behind this game. I don't know the people, but despite the evident partisanship in the posts, I don't see any observations or reasoning here that have convinced me that a monster with a spell listing and a reference associated with it is the doom of 5e.

The thing is that your empirical first hand observations come from the way you use the monster manuals and monster stats and not the way anyone else I have ever met wants to use them.

As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong please) you hold the following premises:

1. You consider all monsters should be as detailed as PCs despite wildly differing screen time
2. You either go into world building in such detail that there are almost no NPCs the PCs are going to meet who you haven't statted or your PCs are going to stick to that railroad like glue so there are no NPCs the PCs are going to meet that you haven't statted
3. You consider a perfect answer that takes ages to be better than a good answer right now. In essence you consider your time has no value.
4. You have a philosophical aversion to there being actual detail in the monster manual and therefore refuse to use the statblocks that provide the detail on the monster where the rubber meets the road and an outline the rest of the time.

With these premises I can see why your empirical experience is different from literally everyone else I have ever spoken to. But IME points 1 and 3 put you far outside the normal line of DMs. Point 4 means you literally refuse to use the features of the 4e monster manual - no wonder you don't find its features an improvement when you don't use them. And point 2 means your players must be very well trained or you take an incredible amount of time worldbuilding. (As for your understanding of "The theory behind this game", you've pitched a 3.X hypothesis that has been rejected by literally every other edition as part of your theory).



Now there are problems with the 4e Monster Manual 1. And you can criticise that as a document on many issues (most of which have been fixed by the time we reach Monster Vault). Boring monsters. Too little and poorly written fluff. Too little damage. Dragons being too easy to stunlock. All fixed. These are all about the doccument of the Monster Manual 1 and 4e is the only edition of D&D ever (or at least since 1975) where literally every monster manual has been better than the previous one.



There are also issues people have with 4e - and a whole lot of issues people have with the presentation of 4e. But putting the monster statblocks on that list is weird.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[*]You consider all monsters should be as detailed as PCs despite wildly differing screen time

Again, screen time may or may not differ. And the point is not that every monster should be as detailed as every PC, but that the game engine should allow this to take place if the DM chooses. They've talked a lot about varying the level of complexity in character creation. Also, what if a PC becomes and NPC, or vice versa? They have to run off the same basic engine. I full well expect that many players will spend more time actually detailing their characters than DMs will, but that doesn't mean I don't want my monster rules to work.

[*]You either go into world building in such detail that there are almost no NPCs the PCs are going to meet who you haven't statted or your PCs are going to stick to that railroad like glue so there are no NPCs the PCs are going to meet that you haven't statted

D&D is improvisational. If I need an NPC I don't have, I make things up. I can make stats later if needed. Moreover, a good set of stats can be used in a variety of ways, allowing creative freedom. If I go into a session knowing that the PCs will meet an athach, but not knowing where or why this meeting will happen or whether combat will even take place, the PCs are hardly railroaded.

[*]You consider a perfect answer that takes ages to be better than a good answer right now. In essence you consider your time has no value.

Precisely the opposite. I consider monster stats a luxury. Thus, when I bother to make them, they get the royal treatment. I consider having a set of monster and character rules that I can easily manipulate in my head essential to actually running the game session, wherein I most certainly don't have perfect answers ready.

[*]You have a philosophical aversion to there being actual detail in the monster manual and therefore refuse to use the statblocks that provide the detail on the monster where the rubber meets the road and an outline the rest of the time.

Frankly, the actual statblocks themselves are usually written so poorly I can't use them (in any game). I have an aversion to game designers doing my work for me, doing it ineptly, and making me pay for it if I want the actual rules. This objection carries through to the 3e MMIV and MMV, which also have this problem. Again, a monster manual is a tool you use to make monsters. The less well it fulfills that function, the less well-written I judge it to be.

The thing is that your empirical first hand observations come from the way you use the monster manuals and monster stats and not the way anyone else I have ever met wants to use them.

My observations, like all people's, are a product of my experience. As are yours and everyone else's. I have never met anyone with the philosophy of monster design you describe, have never met anyone who uses monster statblocks straight out of the book or had a problem referencing monster abilities, and indeed, have never met anyone who plays 4e, despite knowing people who play a number of different rpg systems in different contexts. I think it is safe to say that both our experiences are completely different, but equally valid.

Um... no. I really don't think it is. There are a lot of reasons why people didn't like 4E, including dissociated mechanics, massive changes to game lore, battlemat dependence, lengthy combats, rigid class structure, and the condescending attitude of much of the design team*. I have seen very few people cite "monster design" as a reason to dislike 4E. In fact, I have seen several comments to the effect, "You know, I can't stand 4E, but they got monsters right."

I recall a lot of debate being directed towards the minion concept (and the monster role concept in general), as well as the inability to play monsters as PCs, lack of detail for monster ecology and out-of-combat functionality, and many other things that are germane to this thread topic. The other points you raise are perfectly valid, but your suggestion that there is a prevailing opinion against the monster design of 3e and earlier editions is unconvincing.

There is a place for monsters with spell lists. As I said above, that place is when the monster is an actual spellcaster, like a lich, an NPC cleric, or what have you. But spell lists should be used with great restraint and only where it really matches the fiction.

Well, this is true. We should, however, dump this "spell-like ability" nonsense and say that everything that has magic uses it the same way. But certainly, limiting the appearance of that magic is a good idea.

As others have noted, the 5e statblock that started this thread was for a spellcaster.

 

[Steely_Dan]

In essence you consider your time has no value.

Any time I spend on this game has value.

 

[eamon]

A little is spice...

I don't mind the occasional spell in a monster stat block. Of course most monsters should be simple and most simple monsters shouldn't have spells. However, in a complicated monster, I'd prefer a spell I've seen before to a new, trimmed-down mechanic I don't, and even in a simple monster the occasional signature spell might be OK; I'm likely to remember them (e.g. magic missile or hold person - nothing unusual).

Practically, that means to avoid long spell lists on monsters, and to avoid simple monsters having spells (and if the occasional simple monster has a spell, it should be a very common one).

However, I think the focus of the thread is wrong: all monsters refer to game rules you need to look up. In 4e you'd need to know a rather broad set of combat mechanics, some of which virtually never apply to PCs. Then there's things like reach vs. threatening reach, unusual conditions, rules concerning saving throws, how to end a grab, what happens when you teleport an immobilized creature or whatnot. The issue is monsters shouldn't require many unusual rules, and virtually all spells are unusual rules.

Monsters shouldn't be too hard to run, and having spells is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a monster to be too hard to run.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Frankly, the actual statblocks themselves are usually written so poorly I can't use them (in any game).

This might be true. It is certainly true in 3.X This is not true in 4e. The 4e statblocks in Monster Vault et al are written well. And the argument being made here is that the statblocks in DDN are a huge step back from the 4e monster statblocks.

My observations, like all people's, are a product of my experience. As are yours and everyone else's. I have never ... met anyone who plays 4e,

So when people who do play 4e are telling you that the monster statblocks in 4e are vastly better than those in previous editions, you have absolutely no baseline to compare it to.

I think it is safe to say that both our experiences are completely different, but equally valid.

I think it's safe to say that our experiences are different. I think it also safe to say that when we are discussing the 4e monster statblock and how it is a leap forward from previous statblocks and this is a leap back, if you have never even met anyone who plays 4e then your experience is completely irrelevant.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This might be true. It is certainly true in 3.X This is not true in 4e. The 4e statblocks in Monster Vault et al are written well. And the argument being made here is that the statblocks in DDN are a huge step back from the 4e monster statblocks.

I have never seen a monster statblock written for any game, D&D or otherwise, that I would use as written. I am comfortable in thinking that I am better suited to create material for my group than any game designer. I do not think one more new system is likely to change this philosophy.

So when people who do play 4e are telling you that the monster statblocks in 4e are vastly better than those in previous editions, you have absolutely no baseline to compare it to.

I think it's safe to say that our experiences are different. I think it also safe to say that when we are discussing the 4e monster statblock and how it is a leap forward from previous statblocks and this is a leap back, if you have never even met anyone who plays 4e then your experience is completely irrelevant.

I can't believe I wasted all these years running completely irrelevant games!

Seriously, my opinions are not restricted to being valid only with regards to what I have first-hand or second-hand experience with. I have opinions about movies I have never seen, countries I have never been to, and people I have never met. Many of those opinions are well-informed, perhaps even more well-informed than those of people who do have first-hand experience with the topic in question. I am not claiming to be the voice of the masses, the voice that has played every game and knows everything about games, merely that I have played D&D for a while and learned a few things in the process. Anyone else is perfectly welcome to voice their opinion, even if I disagree with it.

 

[pemerton]

They aren't really that different. The player plays one character. The DM plays all the other characters, and determines all the non-character-based events, and interprets the rules. He's just a really powerful player plus a referee. They really aren't that different, and the character creation process for either really isn't that different.

I don't agree with this at all.

As I play (and GM) the game, the PCs are protagonists. The NPCs are elements of situations that the PCs engage.

Look at a module like Against the Giants. Nosra, the Jarl and so on are not "PCs played by the GM". They're antagonists. They have been statted up and put into a fictional situation preciesly to be opposed by the PCs.

Now look at a d20 module like Three Days to Kill. The same thing is true of the bandit leaders in that scenario. They are antagonists. Their purpose for being part of the game revolves entirely around the PCs.

The PCs are created to be protagonists. They generate a list of player resources for protagonism. NPCs and monsters, being created for a different purpose, can be created differently. And the GM needs a different set of resources. Apart from anything else, in the typical scenario the GM's resources are distributed across a wider range of fictional personae.

And, since generally no one knows how long a character is going to last or how much use it will see, there really isn't any difference in the time for creating a PC or another character (monster/NPC).

If you go into the game with an attitude of indifference to whether the players' characters, or random orc (or even random supervillain) #3 is going to be the protagonist in your game, you are playing a radically different game from my own.

What do the players do in a game where it is up for grabs whether their PCs, or the NPCs and monsters, will be the focus of play?

Also, what if a PC becomes and NPC, or vice versa? They have to run off the same basic engine.

Are you talking about character creation rules, or action resolution rules?

But anyway, if an NPC becomes a PC, you rebuild. If a PC becomes and NPC, you probably rebuild too (in 4e, you might use the companion character rules from DMG2).